Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Good grief! No you're just trolling. I will not allow you to derail the thread with red herring logical fallacies like the issue of how many genders there are. The fact is that you cannot defend your position on Obergefell so now your just throwing dung at the wall to see what sticks. Nothing is stickingMy experience with people who take that position is that they hate mormons, do not believe that there are more than two genders, and believe that they can Define the word woman.
The fall back position of bigots and misoynists who are too cowardly to admit what they areLike Roe it should have been left up to the States.
But it’s okay for businesses to fire someone for personal and religious choices?The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”
Yea…the “fall back position” is to let people vote on it. That clearly triggers you.The fall back position of bigots and misoynists who are too cowardly to admit what they are
If that were true, it would seem you would have pointed out the flaws in my statement instead of turning to amateur psychology to derail your own question.Give it a try hot shot. Seymour tried but fell short as they all do
So he wanted protection for employment in exchange for him signing off on gays not having human rights?Wrong. He signed it because Republicans were threatening to introduce a contitutional amendment declaring that marriage is a man and a woman. It was around the time that the first states were moving towards allowing same sex marriage . In addition, Clinton was promised legislation that provided protection for gays in employment but they reneged on it.
It was you who started making it personal after you asked for a logical argument:Good grief! No you're just trolling. I will not allow you to derail the thread with red herring logical fallacies like the issue of how many genders there are. The fact is that you cannot defend your position on Obergefell so now your just throwing dung at the wall to see what sticks. Nothing is sticking
People do not get to vote on the civil rights of others. That is contrary to the principles of a constitutional republicYea…the “fall back position” is to let people vote on it. That clearly triggers you.
You might want to try and clean that up so that we know what the fuck you're jabbering aboutMany of the leftys rightly point to the 14th ammendment. That no state can deny equal protection under the law. They also like to say that scotus had no right to overturn roe, denying women the right to abortion, even though they thought it was OK when scotus created roe originally.
So, if the 14th ammendment is the argument you want to use here, and you also agree that scotus has the power to force states to perform abortions, then that also would mean that if scotus decided that Americans should enjoy gun reciprocity nationally, a right specified in the Constitution, and that no state can deny a citizen it's right to bear arms by denying them reciprocity across state lined, you're good with that?
Isn't this the best course? Adhere to the constitution? The problem with giving the federal government too much power is, eventually there will be a government you don't like or agree with, and then you'll be stuck with their policies.Well, they're going full federalist. Leave everything possible to the states.
It's clearly writtenYou might want to try and clean that up so that we know what the fuck you're jabbering about
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. My bad. You know what I mean so stop trying to avoid itAlso, I think you mean "textualism," not "texturalism?" Texturalism would have something to do with the roughness or smoothness of the surface of the paper the US Constitution is written on and I give that very little importance.
Really. ? You might want to start by comparing and contrasting the issue of gun rights to civil rights. And then there was that bit about "forcing states to perform abortions" Are you fucking serious?It's clearly written
Why should they have to when the constitution is supposed to protect everyone equally?Isn't this the best course? Adhere to the constitution? The problem with giving the federal government too much power is, eventually there will be a government you don't like or agree with, and then you'll be stuck with their policies.
At least with states rights, only the people that live in the state have to deal with bad policy.
Look it up!BTW, it should be "to which few constitutional scholars adhere." Also followed by, "which I cannot prove, of course."
It was a rational tactive decision in the context of the timesSo he wanted protection for employment in exchange for him signing off on gays not having human rights?
I did poit out the flaws. The legal flaws. The historical flaws. Go back and read it again, this timewith comprehensionIf that were true, it would seem you would have pointed out the flaws in my statement instead of turning to amateur psychology to derail your own question.
Nopeif you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer .
Maybe you're too chicken to answer as well? ...
You will NOT ALLOW?!!!!Good grief! No you're just trolling. I will not allow you to derail the thread with red herring logical fallacies like the issue of how many genders there are. The fact is that you cannot defend your position on Obergefell so now your just throwing dung at the wall to see what sticks. Nothing is sticking
